|
|
talk.politics.animals |
> That so? Let's cut your balls off without anaesthesia then. > Animals are not a proper food for humans. > I don't care what you stand by. Cite some evidence yourself for a change. I also found the following chart, though I haven't had time to Pan troglodytes: Longevity about 40 years. http://www.saburchill.com/IBbiology/chapters02/030.html Now piss off, pendejo. You do your own homework next time. our village idiot wrote: Another vegan misanthrope lashing out with violence. Are you trying to
>>Suffering is a necessary part of existence ON our planet.
fatten me for slaughter? That's one reason why bulls are castrated; it's
also normally done in a painless fashion.
>>Living requires food. Animals are food. Pleasure is a function of Yes they are.
>>eating, too, so it makes sense that animals are for our pleasure.
> Illness results, Illness results from eating certain plants immediately. Illness and
death occur regardless of diet at some point in life.
> suffering results. Suffering results for all animals whether they're eaten by humans or
other animals. Indeed, many other predators are less humane than humans.
> Animals are not here for our pleasure. Sure they are.
>>I'll stand by that with respect to a time-frame of a little longer than Accepting the premise that changes in longevity
>>"until very recently." I'll add that I have serious doubts about the
>>longevity of early hominids given predation, disease, and acts of
>>nature. Those utopian pseudo-science websites you like to cite don't
>>mention any of the above -- I wonder why.
have occurred over the course of human evolution,
we use a resampling approach to examine the nature
of that change, with particular interest in whether
there is a pattern of gradual change, or if there is
a significant increase in longevity with the emergence
of Homo erectus. Our sample consists of ages at death
derived from the literature and includes over 150
specimens ranging from the late Miocene to the Upper
Pleistocene. These were plotted against time using a
resampling method that avoids the problems of time
dependence and the interpretation of slope that are
inherent in linear regressions. To avoid error introduced
by dates, we considered the data in 100,000 and 50,000
year intervals and focused on increments of change (D)
between individual observations in adjacent intervals.
Random resampling with replacement was done an equal number
of times for each increment generating a distribution for each
resampling run as well as a total distribution of D. These
distributions suggest no significant change in longevity
with the emergence of Homo erectus; RATHER, SUCH CHANGE
OCCURS LATER IN HUMAN EVOLUTION. [my emphasis]
investigate the site. The information on it tends to agree with what I
remembered from my biology and anthropology courses.
Australopithecus africanus: Longevity 40 years maximum.
Homo erectus: Greater longevity 52 years.
Homo sapiens: Longevity 66 years.